One of the things on the list was: "the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers." I believe that "knowledge" refers to the clerk's failure to include one city's votes in her first report. But Kloppenburg casts aspersions on bloggers as evidence of something worrisome going on.

Who are the bloggers? I'd like the links to the blog posts that support the statement!

I'd like to know if I'm one of the "conservative bloggers," and, if so, why am I being called "conservative"? (At the link, above, you can see why I suspect the reference is to me [and how I got my knowledge]. ) And who are the other bloggers?

Kloppenburg is stirring up public suspicion of the vote-counting process. That is a very serious matter, especially for someone who aspires to a seat on this highest court in the state. She should be scrupulous about the way she presents facts and should not manipulate public opinion. If the evidence does not warrant mistrust, it is injudicious to stimulate mistrust.

Her list of things that "raise significant questions" about the process in Waukesha felt long, but what is really on it?

a one-and-a-half day delay in notifying any responsible party about a county vote total that [the clerk] knew was incorrect

the absence of any reasonable basis for her explanations

the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers

the complete absence of knowledge by the canvass board until the press conference

It sounded like big list, but there are only 4 items. And 2 of the items are the absence of anything. An absence of evidence might be probative of something that matters, but you have to build a foundation for why it matters.

The first item on the list is simply the mistake we all know about: The clerk, Kathy Nickolaus, initially reported zero votes from the city of Brookfield and later provided a vote total. (The vote total is easily consistent with what you would expect from Brookfield.)

The second item is an attempt to make something out of what looks like a mistake. What is the evidence that it's anything but a mistake? The most substantive point is the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers.

So, really, this is important! What was she talking about?

ADDED: Before writing this post, I emailed campaign@kloppenburgforjustice.com: "What does 'the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers' refer to? I would like the names of the bloggers and the links to the blog posts that support this statement." That was 2 hours ago. I'll let you know if I get a response.

AND: Still no response from the Kloppenburg campaign, but a few people have indicated that they think one of the "conservative bloggers" was Christian Schneider, writing at National Review's Corner, noting the "computer error... revealed today" approximately 1 hour before the press conference. I don't know who the other bloggers were or what their sources were.

I really think she was speaking specifically about you and/or your commenters. I visited other sites covering WI politics that night and the first (maybe only?) one that was talking about the discrepancy was right here.

If she is really referencing "conservative bloggers" as a vital part of her recount reasoning, then she obviously has no idea how to handle factual evidence, which leads me to conclude that she is in no way judge material. Assuming she is referring to this blog as a prime example, all she--or anyone--would have to do would be to look through the comments in the election threads. Simple as that. When Waukesha County goes from a low percentage of the precincts reporting to a high percentage, and the vote totals have barely changed, it's a pretty obvious flub on the COUNTING end, not some conservative conspiracy that needs to be taken out!

You said you suspected the total was off, right? That's what she's talking about. It's a desperate clutching at straws. Will cost the state millions, her floundering about. "If I don't win, I'll make sure everybody loses." It's childish, but what do you expect from the starry eyed hope and change crowd.

Well, Professor Althouse, I suspect you are conservative by the standards of Madison, Wisconsin.

And what she is calling "prior knowledge" seems to be your noticing that there was a discrepancy in the Waukesha vote totals on election night. In other words, you're a conservative (by her standards), who turns out to be smarter than she is (not a particularly high bar to pass IMAO), and conservatives are stupid (according to lefties), so you must have had prior knowledge. Q.E.D.

And, please tell, is Kloppenburg really the best that the perpetually-enraged-about-something-or-another Left can come up with in the way of a judge? Because, if so, then they're pretty hopeless.

That would rob Althouse of about 50 blog posts. I think Klopp meant the NRO, and some other outlets that knew beforehand the Nickolaus "I forgot to tell you guys about these 7500 votes" announcement was coming. There was something in the complain about Walker meeting Prosser secretly the day after the election?

Herself.Her sense of entitlement.The innate superiority of her ideas.Etc.

The list is long.

(I started out with some respect for this woman. She was taking the time to run for public office against long odds. I hoped it had something to do with beliefs, convictions and a sense of duty. Now what I see is another self-entitled, narcissistic, ill-educated crank.)

"She" (i.e. JoAnne Kloppenburg) likely isn't saying or implying anything. I suspect that all of the items on her list are talking points that were agonizingly constructed and vetted by local democratic operatives over the past several days. One easily could get distracted by the specific charges, but what strikes me is the similarity in tone and content with the statement supposedly put out by Ramona Kitzinger last week.

A friend and I were chatting online for most of the night, and both of us noted the discrepancy in Waukesha County. I think we both count as conservatives, too. So maybe she was eavesdropping on my instant-messaging.

Is she a parrot or a paranoid? That is, is she repeating some punchlist a PR flak gave her? Or does she really believe in her petty objections?

It can be mesmerizing, if not exactly heartwarming, to watch partisans construct their bunkers. Perhaps Kloppenburg has really convinced herself into thinking that the easily corrected oversight of Brookfield's vote totals is a nefarious conspiracy. One hopes she's just a parrot.

Certainly some of our beloved progressive commenters here exhibit the same baffling conviction. There's only so many ways to maintain suspicion about something so plainly unsuspicious; I hope, by now, we've seen them all.

Maybe Kloppenberg reads the blogs (blogs?) that have triggered her paranoia, but that would be unfortunate. That would mean she's not a parrot, and not just paranoid, but a poltroon as well.

Althouse should invite her to comment here with her suspicions. Perhaps some ridicule will act as therapy.

It might have been better for her and her side (the wave of Lefty anger that could wash her away as well) to accept defeat graciously. Long term calculation and all. Hopefully she's not so naive as to think they really like her.

Ride that wave by the light of the Madison moon, Kloppy.

Her voice sounds like she's talking to a bunch of kindergartners, or perhaps she's merely telegraphing her concern for the poor, the ever-reformable, or the union man.

"Conservative" bloggers apparently have this unnatural ability to look at previous vote totals and current vote totals and notice a difference. I wonder whether she considers Politico to be "Liberal" or "Conservative".

Short question, why the labels at all? Would the real issue be if insider knowledge of voter irregularities was known by anybody, regardless of affiliation?

I guess more technically accurate would be noticing a lack of difference in vote total despite a change in status.

When this is over, can we use Kloppenburg's arguments here as proof that apparently liberals indeed do not have brains? Or a least that they are extremely unperceptive, despite their claims of understanding nuance.

Repeating what I said in the other thread, it's ironic that on election night when the totals showed her ahead by 200 votes, Kloppenburg instantly declared victory! 200 votes was enough to erase all doubt in her mind!

But after the official totals (not the erroneous AP-reported totals) came in, 7300 votes is too few for Prosser to have won.

Someone call her on this. Why was she so sure of the outcome when she led by so few votes, but now she demands a recount when she lost by 36 times that same amount?

From the perspective of several states away (Ohio), I thought Prosser looked limp as a candidate; he was extremely fortunate in his opponent.

Barring some vanishingly unlikely turn of events, this recount is very likely to help him and hurt the left, because (a) it will uphold the outcome; and either (b) Kloppenburg will accept that or (c) she won't; in any case, her nuttier allies certainly won't. And when that happens, the resulting freak show will be the unwelcome face of the opposition in Wisconsin. It will be something like what the White House has--by inaction--tried to make happen with the "birther" issue.

So it may be that what Gov. Walker said in the "secret" meeting with Prosser was, "never interfere when your opponent is busy destroying herself."

Just remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it, I wonder why the change? I think main reason to do the recount is to clear the air, and if voting irregularities occur in Milwaukee or Waukesha expose them to keep the system healthy.

You don't understand what's happening here. The Dems are trying to de-legitimize the electoral process. Anything and everything they say about things that are wrong with the vote is projection. They have been accusing conservatives of doing exactly what they do. The Dems want power, control, and money. Not honest elections.

I'm pretty sure that Kloppenburg wasn't the "chosen" liberal candidation. I don't think that anyone thought that Prosser was beatable, so no one paid much attention to the candidates who opposed him and the canidates who opposed him were pretty much self-selected. Of course, things happened and all of a sudden liberals realized that Kloppenburg could be used to advance their cause. The liberals were lucky that Kloppenburg happened to be a very liberal person who was easily influenced by those around her, and Kloppenburg was lucky because all of a sudden she went from being a sure loser to a candidate that had a shot at unseating Prosser. Klooppenburg is smart, but it turns out that she is not a practical person and that she is a weak person who is easily influenced by those around her, neither of which traits make a good Supreme Court judge in my opinion.

Threemonths ago, Kloppenburg was electoral cannon fodder because the (re)progressives needed somebody to run against Prosser.

Given Kloppenburg's apparent lack of clarity of thought and communication and her astonishing lack preparedness for the news conference, it amazes me how the (re)progressives are rallying around her like the second coming.

I mean, really, does this woman have the mental acuity and gravitas to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

I think obviously not. But in all likelihood she will be honored forever as a martyr for the “cause”.

Kloppy may truly not understand it all. When she talked about numbers in her victory speech, she had a deer-in-headlights looks like she herself didn't understand what she was saying and hoped she wouldn't be called on it. Now the numbers have changed, and the explanation for it may require a mental capability she doesn't possess.

My ex-wife is like that. Very smart in some ways, but when it comes to anything numerical, no matter how simple, she becomes absolutely retarded.

You're going to have to get used to this. If you are an honest 'truth seeker' ( you seem to be one, to me), you will eventually be labeled a 'conservative', as you will be finding more social and political truth in that direction, the more you look.

Same sort of thing happens if you are a 'realist', as you will be eventually labeled a 'pessimist', given human nature and the indifferent universe ( just ask the dinosaurs ) we all reside in.

I wonder when the Wisconsin Democratic Party is going to realize that running Democrats from Madison for the Supreme Court is a losing proposition? It's unfortunate that they (Democrats from Madison) are most likely to get through the primary.

It's sorta the mirror image of Conservative Republicans (Socially Conservative) getting through the primaries for other offices.

Is this Kloppenburg "Scream in Racine" moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ6nQaE2FM8) where her political bias becomes so obvious that the electorate can no longer ignore it? The original "Scream in Racine" moment occurred during an annual union rally in Racine, WV when then West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren Mcgraw ranted about how Republicans were "destroying democracy" among other things.

It's just another example of the kind of myth-making Democrats rely one (nowadays disconcertingly known as "narrative") in lieu of learning. Whenever an election doesn't go their way, or a policy fails to produce the promised results they blame it on conspiracy. This relives them of responsibility for their own fate; they never learn. And it's also the reason this nation is headed at flank speed for Third World status. The Democrats have only had three ideas in their entire history, and only one since Woodrow Wilson.

What blows my mind is Ms. K has degrees from Yale and Princeton, and a law degree from UW. She is not stupid. And despite her soft spoken demeanor she is playing political hardball. My gut tells me that Justice Prosser should be very wary.

She says at the end that the law "requires" a recount. It, of course, does not.

I'm at a complete loss as to what Kloppenburg and her cohort think happened here, what kind of "fraud" was committed. Surely they can't believe the Brookfield votes were fabricated out of thin air. Can they? What, then??

I know we're all pretty much stuck with the voice God gives us, but, JoAnne, after listening to you, fingernails on a chalk board would be a relief.

Ann, I'm interested in knowing if you've noticed any changes in the attitudes of your colleagues and students toward you since all this began.

Kloppenburg is a typical sore loser(in the vane of an Algore type)and she doesn't give a hoot about honesty or the cost of the recount...that's typical of the Unions in Wisconsin: Let them raise taxes to pay us and to pay for the useless vote recount.Then to add insult to injury Kloopenburg throws in the allegation of a fraudulent election?

@roesch voltaireJust remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it, I wonder why the change?

First, the margin of victory at that time was ~200 votes. Now it's over 7300, and close to the statutory limit for an automatic recount of 0.5%.

Second, as Prof. Althouse and others noted the night of, Waukesha's results looked off. Prosser's people probably saw the same thing. Now Kloppenburg's people are saying what exactly, that Waukesha's original report was the accurate one, and that Kloppenburg is still ahead by 200 votes?

The reason it sounds like such a long list is that she's unbelievable slow and dull in how she talks.

And I don't mean like a normal adult who is careful, but in a peculiar way.

She's like that stewardess lead actress in 'Airplane', only slowed down 90%.

She spent 10-20 seconds in silence before answering 'Do you think you won'. She could make a McDonalds Menu seem longer than the Old Testament.

Anyway, her judgment is very flawed to raise this accusation of prior knowledge in a press conference. She hasn't specified specifically what constitutes the charge, and why not? She said we need to shine light on the process and be absolutely sure, even when the chances of Prosser not winning are unbelievably low, but she hides important details? The truth is that Klopp knows she was lying, and she knows she did that to delegitimize Prosser's victory.

That's been her MO all along. She insisted she won before the results were even in, or canvassed, and that was because it was clear a large number of Prosser votes were about to be counted. The writing was on the wall, and surely the candidates knew of the problem. By announcing victory, she delegitimizes the true result.

It's very slimy, much like her reliance on that molestation ad. Her defense is that 'there is no evidence I'm linked'. Not that she disagrees with that kind of horrible ad. An ad that punishes Prosser for being a good judge, even when the defendant is hated.

I guess I could go on for a long time on this. It's sad that Wisconsin took Klopp seriously.

The so-called Julian Date is a quantity used by astronomers which consists of the number of days since January 1, 4713 BC, noon Universal (Greenwich) Time. According to the Paris Observatory, noon today in the Central Daylight Time standard in the Althouse blog will be Julian date 2455672.7916666665.

A) I remember during the Annette Ziegler/Linda Clifford Supreme Court race, it was noted that the conservatives ran a "babe", while the progressives ran a "donkey". Kloppenberg definitely falls on the "donkey" end of the spectrum, no?

B) I think Kloppenberg does have a lot riding on the outcome. During her "victory" speech she mentioned putting 15,000 miles on her mother-in-law's Buick while campaigning. I imagine she and her husband have promised the mother-in-law that they will move out of her basement as soon as Kloppenberg gets a better job.

The Klopp reminds me of a kintergardener upset when eliminated from game of Musical Chairs. She has been told that she must ask for a recount to have a chance for the next dem nomination.Rs should hope she gets it.

Althouse, your continued insistence you’re not a conservative blogger is part of what makes you a conservative blogger -- your utter denial of reality.

Gee, how about starting with the fact that you always defend conservatives/tea partiers and always mock/complain about liberals -- at least every time I look in on this blog you do? And how about the fact that you're a big fan of Rush Limbaugh? Jesuschrist -- Helloooo! Oh, and your being for gay marriage doesn't count because if I'm not mistaken, you have a gay son. That's right, IT DOESN'T COUNT because like Dick Cheney being okay with gay marriage who just happens to have a lesbian daughter or Nancy Reagan supporting federally-funded adult stem cell research whose hubby just happened to have a disease that could potentially be cured by it, shit has to hit home with conservatives before they finally get it. And in case you or anyone in your conservative peanut gallery accuse me of going over the line with personal attacking, pause for a minute or ten minutes or whatever it takes and seriously try to understand this point of view: I don't consider homosexuality something to be ashamed of. So I’m not attacking your son at all about anything.

Secondly, it’s surely no surprise to you that those who “mistakenly” call you a conservative blogger always seem to be liberals because they’re generally wrong anyway, right? Conversely, it always seems to be conservatives/non-liberals who “correctly” observe that you’re not a conservative blogger because they’re generally right about stuff anyway, right? Is this not your observation? Of course it is. And it’s as cluelessly un-self-aware and absurd as the first thing you said that made me notice you when you told Bob Wright on Bloggingheads several years ago that it’s liberals who are mean to you (with your “cruel neutrality”) while conservatives are nice to you; and your explanation for this was that it’s because liberals look for heretics and conservatives look for converts. Yeah, it couldn’t possibly be because of any bias on your part to the right-wing, oh no. Ugh.

Like an observant, much more eloquent and concise commenter than me once said over at Bloggingheads:

The least attractive thing about Althouse is her pretension to evenhanded, sensible non-partisanship.

"Althouse, your continued insistence you’re not a conservative blogger is part of what makes you a conservative blogger -- your utter denial of reality."

So let me get this straight, you're deranged enough to think being conservative means denying reality, and you think you're an authority on who is and is not conservative?

She voted for Obama! She's a professor in Madison! She's hardly socially conservative, and she's criticized Republicans many times.

What exactly makes you so sure she's conservative? Is CNN conservative to you? Is Greta Van Susteren? Is Bill Clinton?

Let's face it: Althouse gets to decide if she's conservative or not. It's not important, anyway. This isn't some kind of sport with opposing sides. She just wants to talk about issues and nonsense. Why do you need to label her conservative?

Oh yeah, because then you can say that proves she has no credibility, of course. Because that's how you think. That's not 'reality', that's 'delusional'.

Of course she's talking about you, Ann, when she says "conservative bloggers." And by "conservative," she means what every other movement leftist means by "conservative," "far right," "wingnut" and similar terms: she means, anyone who disagrees with her or questions her about any part of her belief system or her power claims. "Conservative" is an all-purpose epithet meant to delegitimize (by questioning of motives and imputation of the list of sins attributed to "conservatives") anyone who stands, or is perceived to stand, in their path.

Why did K was sured she won by 200 AP votes, and raised hell about P's 3000+ votes?

Simple: She knew the Democratic Party would always make just enough votes to win. By exposing the AP mistake so late, the Republican county clerk had deprived the Dem Party their chances to make enough votes. All those cemeteries ballots, abandoned warehouse votes were shredded as confetti in K's victory euphoria. The Republican county clerk had definitely "stolen" K's entitled Supreme seat. The clerk must be made to pay, the Wisconsin taxpayers who did not vote for her must pay with their tax dollars, every vote for P must be challenged so he could not take his seat, and Govt. Union vs Wisconsin Taxpayers would be decided 3-3, letting Sumi's silly ruling stay.

To paraphrase Daddy Kennedy: I'll buy you just enough votes to win, no more and no less.

From the perspective of several states away (Ohio), I thought Prosser looked limp as a candidate; he was extremely fortunate in his opponent.

Prosser thought he was running in a sober, dull election. He was running as a sober, dull jurist. It wasn't until after the return of the Fleebaggers and the effort to turn what was a boring election into a hyperpartisan attack on the Governor that Prosser's demeanor became an issue at all.

I think it's hilarious that "joklo" (heh) has the gall to accuse Althouse in this way, but is too cowardly to reply to a direct response.

She can't stand up to Althouse? I mean, this is one nasty accusation. 'Prior knowledge'. It's just the little tilt you need to turn a cleared up mistake into a theft.

I guess this is the kind of person who would actually shut down the legislature if the voters wanted republicans to run it. this is the kind of person who would say 'If I can't have you, nobody will!'.

Klopp seems so trashy. Before I thought she was a bit dim, obviously hopeful of being a judicial activist because her politics are so much more important than the system itself to her, but now... she just seems like desperate trash.

I didn't even have a problem with the recount. I just asked that she handle this honorably. Throwing lies around is not OK.

@Drew 4/21/11 9:35 AM said... . . . Why was she so sure of the outcome when she led by so few votes, but now she demands a recount when she lost by 36 times that same amount?

The answer is really very, very simple -- it was not just about the numbers.

Understand?

See, her declaration of victory with a 204 vote lead was made before the GAB oversaw the entire county-by-county canvassing process, one whereby each of the counties verified their totals, many of which changed as they more carefully double checked their numbers, including the three counties [Milwaukee, Crawford, Sauk] that kept adding and re-adding their columns of figures, hoping the outcome would somehow change in favor of Kloppenburg; while the 7,316 statewide vote difference was arrived at only after that entire process had taken place.

Does anyone else find the sexism overwhelmingly offensive in these comments?

Does asking for recall really make Kloppenburg "unpractical" and "weak?" If roles were reversed and Prosser was asking for the recount, I have a feeling most of the comments would be praising his strength.

Comments on her appearance also seem really misplaced. Why does it matter that she wears scarves? How does that affect her abilities as a Supreme Court candidate?

Kloppenburg didn't understand the numbers like your ex-wife? Ick.

With what information are people supposed to cast their vote for Supreme Court justice? Why hasn't anyone here mentioned decisions by Prosser that they liked or disliked?

Is there a relation between asking for a recount and writing a reasoned legal opinion? After all, she not breaking the law. Why is her decision seen by the commenters being not judicial?

" Does anyone else find the sexism overwhelmingly offensive in these comments? "

LOL.

She's a dishonest idiot who lies about the law and the facts.

Her vagina has nothing to do with it, though she is also quite ugly, so that opens her up to a lot of the typical petty crap people say about ugly people. That's not helpful or anything, but it would be similar if she had a penis instead of a vagina.

End of the story is that Klopp lacks the ability to follow the law or the evidence. She's absolutely not qualified for any role in government, especially as a judge.

We need a recall petition against her boss, unless she's terminated. We don't need liars who don't honestly report the law handling prosecutions.

Insofar as someone's been sexist to her, or Tricia, or Governor Walker, or Prosser, or Althouse, sure... that's no good, but Klopp stinks anyway.

"That's opening a real can of worms to say that she is also "quite ugly." I mean, some people insist that Michelle Obama is beautiful but it doesn't add credibility to the discussion. "

Yes, I know. I'm just granting that Klopp has taken some attacks with don't really have anything to do with a legitimate issue.

Sure. Especially she is physically not attractive. Personally, I don't care. It's not like Prosser is physically attractive either.

So there's always this element of people saying nonsense insults, and that is always worse when they talk about ugly people. Such is life. People are jerks.

It's bad. It's bad whether Klopp is your idea of beauty or not, and whether these attacks are directed at Walker (he's gotten much more bigotry and personal attacks that are nonsense than Klopp has).

But the fact remains that, when we ignore the nonsense and accusations of insensitivity, Klopp does not handle the law with honesty. She does not handle the evidence with honesty. She plays hardball, even if that harms the innocent. And she wants to be a judge.

"This is truly an historic election," Prosser said. "There is little doubt there's going to be a recount in this race, no matter who comes out on top -- tomorrow or today or whenever. But I'm very pleased we have sustained the most difficult assault on a person's character in the whole history of the Wisconsin judicial system. We're still in this race, I've weathered the nuclear blast and I'm still standing. Okay maybe not for it, but not against it either, Meade.

Also, Meade's memory has no holes. Prosser never said anything about a recount. That's just another lie.

I remember that Kos diary where so many said it's great to just lie and lie and lie to establish a narrative. But Prosser was quite classy about this. He knew, when Klopp was saying she won, that this was when they figured out a reporting problem existed. He knows what she did, but he's just being quiet.

Frankly, he could call her a bitch. People who trample on laws and the truth deserve to be called out. But that would be unprofessional of Prosser.

Not to mention the point that calling for a recount with 200 votes of margin is 30 times more reasonable than doing so with 7000 votes of margin. But he didn't.

Prosser didn't call for a recount, period. Even with 1/30th of the margin!

Of course, he wouldn't have to if the vote was that close, but it wasn't. When Klopp claimed victory, she was trying to freeze in time a point she knew was fleeting and incorrect. Why would prosser call for a recount when it was already clear he had won?

I have no dog in this fight at all--seems to me Ms Klop is within her rights to ask for a recound IAW wisconsin law--her explanatory comments seem a bit over the top but it is politics.

In the end Mr Prosser will win, but Ms Klop... has burnished the meme that republicans are evil, democrats are good and somehow the conservative bloggers and Koch brothers are all behind some grand conspiracy.

and in the end who really gives a damn what happens in wisconsin--(although I will credit the packers--the only good thing that has come out of wisconsin in 60 years)

. . . Is there a relation between asking for a recount and writing a reasoned legal opinion? After all, she not breaking the law. Why is her decision seen by the commenters being not judicial?

As to the relationship, "Yes." As had been carefully pointed out by several commenters, she publicly and confidently declared that she was absolutely the winner the day after the election, whilst holding a very, very thin and utterly unverified lead of 204 votes, prior to the beginning of the GAB overseeing a statewide canvassing process.

Not to pun, but that was a "good" example of what any reasonable person would call "bad judgment." And judgment is, one would hope, the primary qualifier for judges and justices -- not just writing, but thinking.

Following that lengthy statewide, county-by-county canvassing process -- after all the checking and double-checking had been undertaken in every county in the entire state, and an investigation had been completed of the reporting "anomaly" in Waukesha County, it became very clear that Joanne Kloppenburg was down by 7,316 votes. She lost.

But, in spite of her prior victory declaration, she suddenly decided to undertake a "free" recount (one paid for by the taxpayers) for reasons that are very thin indeed, including one regarding yet-unexplained aspersions that she cast at so-called "conservative bloggers," which is the topic of this post! Do you have a response to the question Joanne Kloppenburg refuses to answer?

Under the circumstances, that decision to seek a recount stands out as a second example of bad judgment on her part.

Your question suggests that you somehow equate her "right" to ask for a recount, to a sufficient justification for seeking one . . . because it's not illegal!

Just because you have the "right" to do something does not mean you should go right ahead and do it! Clearly, in her press conference she did not make the case for going forward with the recount. There is little if any chance at all that she would prevail, or even come close to prevailing in a recount.

The full canvassing process did not result in the unearthing of any evidence whatsoever that could possibly change anything more than perhaps a few votes.

Finally, to date, no one has produced any evidence that any candidate has ever come even remotely close to overcoming a 7,316 vote deficit in a full recount in Wisconsin.

This is simply a case of one instance after another of exercising bad judgment on her part, post-election. Since April 5th, I'd argue that she has persuasively shown that she actually lacks the requisite qualifications, and that Wisconsin has dodged a bullet.

But what you said was that we should remember that Prosser was "for a re-count before he was against it."

Why were you telling us to remember something that never happened, r-v? To make Prosser appear to be a liar or a hypocrite or someone who can't be trusted?

Some people are saying that JoAnne Kloppenburg's true motive for requesting a recount (yesterday she erroneously asserted "the law requires a recount") is to delegitimize an otherwise free and fair democratic election for supreme court judge.

Many people have suspected that the protesters and Democrats and public employee union officials have been trying to delegitimize the free and fair democratic election of November 2010.

roesch-voltaire, what is your motive for trying to get readers here to remember something that never happened?

Meade--when Mr R-V provides some documentary evidence to support his assertion, we can safely think him to be a liar. I will, of course, retract my statement in light of any evidence Mr R-V can summon. Link required

This is a rhetorical device that bugs me. If Some people are saying it, you should be able to quote them (that's a generic you addressed to all who use this -- Presidents seem very fond of it. It's not addressed to you specifically, Meade).

TGI said: But the fact remains that, when we ignore the nonsense and accusations of insensitivity, Klopp does not handle the law with honesty. She does not handle the evidence with honesty. She plays hardball, even if that harms the innocent.

Agreed. As I said last night, I heard nothing but hubris when she spoke last night. And it seems to me (though I cannot prove) that others more powerful than she are putting her up to this. Not unreasonable considering what's at stake here.

Kindly put the axe down and slowly back away from the computer, my friend.

Here you go:

"Kloppenburg is stirring up public suspicion of the vote-counting process. That is a very serious matter, especially for someone who aspires to a seat on this highest court in the state. She should be scrupulous about the way she presents facts and should not manipulate public opinion. If the evidence does not warrant mistrust, it is injudicious to stimulate mistrust." - Ann Althouse

I posted the quote upon which my memory was based, and yes he did not say he was "for" a recount, but my only sinister motivation was to suggest that Prosser seemed to acknowledge that a recount would take place, which is different than what he said a few days later. And my motive was made clear in the first post--clear the air for the sake of future elections. And please note I did not throw out any personal insults against the girly/man or the color of his ties :)

This is a rhetorical device that bugs me. If Some people are saying it, you should be able to quote them.

Dude, scroll up. Meade doesn't need to quote people (although he does anyway to make you happy) when all you need to do is look at many of the previous comments prior to yours. See Glenn at 9:39am or Quaestor at 10:38am. Then there are the previous posts and comments on this blog, and that poll, that shows a strong majority thought she shouldn't call for a recount, but that she would anyway.

It's not a rhetorical device when it is backed up by facts. You're blatant willingness not to look at the facts, doesn't mean they don't exists right in front of your face.

Add Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club to those in awe of Annie and the Alties.

Not surprisingy some sites, like Ann Althouse’s for example, become very accurate leading edge indicators of breaking political developments. Commenters and author are striving with each other to accumulate peer-scored points in their universe. They become so good it is spooky...

The Grand Inquisitor is right on the money. It all makes sense now: from her first press conference at which she unconvincingly declared herself the winner to her press conference last night and the reasons given for a recount, all, all of it a set up, to create doubt, a narrative of a stolen election. She's a terrible actress otherwise they might have pulled it off.

Who were the bloggers? Kloppenburg used the plural, so she clearly meant more than one. Or was she not accurate with her facts?

Also, why would her campaign not reply to Althouse?

Now that the question of Althouse being the "conservative blogger" is becoming an internet meme, it appears that the Kloppenburg campaign is incompetent and unprepared for the questions and scrutiny that lie ahead.

That "15 second" pregnant pause may be only the beginning of awkward moments for JoAnne Kloppenburg..

Whoever the "conservative bloggers" were that Kloppenburg impugned in her press conference Wednesday, I hope we end up getting a clear explanation from her as to why "prior knowledge" by bloggers is one of the "irregularities" warranting a recount.

My meeting with Brett Hulsey and his chief-of-staff went very well, thanks. Cordial, respectful - I think we shared some valuable information between constituent and representative. I think he shares my opinion on that.

Did you know that Wisconsin legislators' office staff members are state public employees who are NOT allowed to join a union or in any way collectively bargain? That includes collectively bargaining for salary and wages? I was surprised to learn that Brett Hulsey and is chief-of-staff did not know that until I informed them.

Apparently, Democratic legislators are shocked and outraged that Scott Walker and the Republicans are attempting to limit the powers to negotiate with Wisconsin taxpayers that public school teachers and others have. But those same Democratic legislators are either ignorant of or quietly condone their own unlimited power to fire at will public employees who have jobs in their own Capitol offices.

If Wisconsin legislators have the power to hire and fire their employees at will, why shouldn't Wisconsin school boards have that same power?

Typical Dem response. During the Democratic Senators' vacation. I wrote to Senator Cullen... he responded about 3 weeks later and when I wanted to give him a counterpoint response... my address had been blocked... stall, ignore, move on, "we have spoken" and accept no debate!

"Apparently, Democratic legislators are shocked and outraged that Scott Walker and the Republicans are attempting to limit the powers to negotiate with Wisconsin taxpayers that public school teachers and others have. But those same Democratic legislators are either ignorant of or quietly condone their own unlimited power to fire at will public employees who have jobs in their own Capitol offices."

sarge here har har now meadie my boy yar caint be so stupid as to believer yar own apples an oranges bullsghit now can yar?holy crap yer a petulant lil pussy boy arguing like some 12 year old b girl aint yar?? bsides everyone knows it was charlie sykes cuz the repubs aint gona mistake lightwts like meadie an annie green springs for the serious goebbel-ettes they likes to do election steelin bidness wiv

Wouldn't it be great to have a new justice who supports witch hunts and opposes free speech? It doesn't matter whether it was you and Meade or anybody else. She's calling for an investigation into what people have said or written about a political issue and campaign. What does that tell you about what kind of justice she'd make?